Keir Starmer's time is up

[andysays]

The acceptance of the Labour amendment is now being justified by concerns about MPs' safety

MPs' safety at heart of Gaza vote row

What we are talking about is Labour MPs who voted for the Labour amendment back in November which did not talk about an immediate ceasefire.

They were hounded on social media, and we're talking talking about protests outside homes and that was very much in the mind of Keir Starmer and indeed very much in the mind of the Speaker when he made that statement yesterday.

Essentially what he was worried about is that, had he not allowed the Labour amendment yesterday which did call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, those Labour MPs would have only had the choice of voting for the SNP motion - which they couldn't do because it talked about how Israel was guilty of collective punishment. Or they could vote for the government motion and that talked about humanitarian pauses.

The Speaker felt that you should give those MPs the ability to vote for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the way they felt comfortable with.

Except that in the end they didn't actually vote, so no MP can now claim to have voted for a ceasefire anyway

edited to add link

 

[andysays]

Did it pass or not?

It passed, but no vote was taken

 

[Ĝasper]

The government aren't going to recognise a motion / amendment that they wouldn't even vote on. Does Starmer really want to a ceasefire

 

[gosub]

The government aren't going to recognise a motion / amendment that they wouldn't even vote on. Does Starmer really want to a ceasefire

Not sure Lord Cameron is the right Minister to be able to get away with that

 

[Karl Masks]

Trying to compute, failing.

1. Is it likely Hoyle was nobbled by Starmer? Why else would he do something so unconventional? Did starmer offer him a peerage knowing that he's rpetty much our next PM? Or is that conspiracy bollox?
2. Everyone having to have their own special snowflake amendment about so serious an issue clearly looks fucking petty.
3. Starmer again trips himself up. He knew it was the SNP's day. But his red lines over Gaza, which he must know are not popular bynow, prevent him from signing it. Yes the SNP are being cyncial, that's politics. He knows the game but i don't see that he gains anything by voting for it.
4. The SNP are cynical because they worded it to trip up Labour. But that only works because of point 3. I don't dispute the SNP's gameplaying, but it only works if you let it. And Labour let it because Starmer, once again, is a twat.
5. You're the Duke of New York, you're hey number one.

 

[steveseagull]

Seen in various places that Hoyle is going to let another debate happen on the subject. no idea if that is a rerun on yesterday but if it is Starmer has his balls in an iron tight grip again.

 

[ska invita]

STARMER STRONG

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Trying to compute, failing.

1. Is it likely Hoyle was nobbled by Starmer? Why else would he do something so unconventional? Did starmer offer him a peerage knowing that he's rpetty much our next PM? Or is that conspiracy bollox?
2. Everyone having to have their own special snowflake amendment about so serious an issue clearly looks fucking petty.
3. Starmer again trips himself up. He knew it was the SNP's day. But his red lines over Gaza, which he must know are not popular bynow, prevent him from signing it. Yes the SNP are being cyncial, that's politics. He knows the game but i don't see that he gains anything by voting for it.
4. The SNP are cynical because they worded it to trip up Labour. But that only works because of point 3. I don't dispute the SNP's gameplaying, but it only works if you let it. And Labour let it because Starmer, once again, is a twat.
5. You're the Duke of New York, you're hey number one.

I don't really get this point 4. A few people are saying that the SNP worded it to make things hard for Labour. But it was their day, their motion, their prerogative to word it how they chose. Labour could always just vote against it, or vote for the Tories' amendment, if they disagreed. Not the SNP's problem if Labour is in a mess over Gaza when the SNP isn't. And not the SNP's responsibility to help Labour out by softening their motion to suit Labour. As it was, they merely highlighted how Labour is with the Tories on this matter, which is doing us a service.

I don't see that as cynical. Cynical is the word to describe Starmer, lying about a genocide for political ends. And Labour get plenty of opposition days. Their leadership have chosen not to use them for a ceasefire debate. They don't want to be anywhere near any ceasefire debate, the callous, murderous, cowardly, bullying, manipulative, unprincipled shits that they are.

I say that as no fan in general of the SNP. I don't trust nationalists like them and their neoliberal tendencies are pretty strong. But they've shown some moral clarity and purpose over Gaza at least. We should be pleased that they put words like 'collective punishment' into the motion. About bloody time.

 

[gosub]

I don't really get this point 4. A few people are saying that the SNP worded it to make things hard for Labour. But it was their day, their motion, their prerogative to word it how they chose. Labour could always just vote against it, or vote for the Tories' amendment, if they disagreed. Not the SNP's problem if Labour is in a mess over Gaza when the SNP isn't. And not the SNP's responsibility to help Labour out by softening their motion to suit Labour. As it was, they merely highlighted how Labour is with the Tories on this matter, which is doing us a service.

I don't see that as cynical. Cynical is the word to describe Starmer, lying about a genocide for political ends. And Labour get plenty of opposition days. Their leadership have chosen not to use them for a ceasefire debate. They don't want to be anywhere near any ceasefire debate, the callous, murderous, cowardly, bullying, manipulative, unprincipled shits that they are.

I say that as no fan in general of the SNP. I don't trust nationalists like them and their neoliberal tendencies are pretty strong. But they've shown some moral clarity and purpose over Gaza at least. We should be pleased that they put words like 'collective punishment' into the motion. About bloody time.

No fan of SNP either so get fucked off when SW1 goes out of its way to give them a point

 

[agricola]

The acceptance of the Labour amendment is now being justified by concerns about MPs' safety

MPs' safety at heart of Gaza vote row



Except that in the end they didn't actually vote, so no MP can now claim to have voted for a ceasefire anyway

edited to add link

This has been going around all day, and its complete crap (I appreciate this has been pointed out already).

Labour MPs could have voted for the SNP amendment, it was the leadership that imposed a three line whip against that with all that entails (potential withdrawal of the whip, which may mean effective deselection). Starmer could have made it a vote of conscience which would have avoided all the "risk" to MPs and more importantly the massive constitutional crisis he has risked; he would probably even have gained some respect from the people who are rightly alienated from him and his faction's antics.

He did none of that and instead looks to have wrecked the Speaker.

 

[PTK]

Did it pass or not?

It passed by default, without a vote. The Deputy Speaker claims that she did not hear any cries of "No", and that therefore she did not need to call a vote (or "division" as they are known as). Rees-Mogg said that she was wrong, and that there were cries of "No." I am not sure why he would lie.

 

[belboid]

I am not sure why he would lie.

Habit?

 

[Gramsci]

The acceptance of the Labour amendment is now being justified by concerns about MPs' safety

MPs' safety at heart of Gaza vote row



Except that in the end they didn't actually vote, so no MP can now claim to have voted for a ceasefire anyway

edited to add link

This kind of thing:

Pro-Palestine Protester Arrested for Using Pins to Put Placard on MP’s Door | Novara Media

A pensioner was subjected to a dawn raid in an ‘act of intimidation’, after some drawing pins were put in the door of the local MP’s office.

novaramedia.com

Footage shared on social media shows officers explaining the arrest on suspicion of criminal damage to Bennett, who is still wearing her nightclothes. The officers ask if she needs medical assistance as she looks very distressed by the situation.

I thought it was a new low to start blaming protestors. That argument has been doing the rounds of the Guardian today.

Its a more sophisticated version of Suella Braverman referring to the demos as Hate marches.

 

[Gramsci]

Heard Starmer being interviewed. Twice was asked if he or any other MPs pressurised the Speaker.

He said he didn't. The journalist asked again. He repeated the same answer.

So he did not answer to deny any other Labour MPs had pressurised the speaker.

 

[Gramsci]

Clerks letter to make clear they did not agree with Speakers decision.

He was warned. So no excuses.

 

[Gramsci]

Owen Jones pointed out SNP get three days a years to put forward motions. Labour 17. If Labour were so concerned about a correctly worded ceasefire motion then they could have done it long ago.

 

[Gramsci]

I do not think for Starmer his time is up over this.

Also think its not just about him. This is about how a section of the Labour party have dealt with the recent events in Israel / Palestine.

Nor do I think the SNP have been cynical on this. From what I've seen this view on ceasefire is genuine. And shared by a least some in Labour party.

Reading the Labour amendment it does not bode well if / when Labour get to power.

The events yesterday appear to me about the Labour party not the SNP or Tories.

 

[zedr]

Owen Jones pointed out SNP get three days a years to put forward motions. Labour 17. If Labour were so concerned about a correctly worded ceasefire motion then they could have done it long ago.

labour had an opposition day motions on the 6th Feb and on the 23rd Jan (there may have been more this year but its v hard to see on the parliament website).

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

labour had an opposition day motions on the 6th Feb and on the 23rd Jan (there may have been more this year but its v hard to see on the parliament website).

What did they put forward instead? Motions for increased sensibleness and more suits and haircuts?

 

[teqniq]

Possibly the most appropriate thread for this as it relates to Labour and it's policies under Starmer:

The No Ceasefire, No Vote movement is growing rapidly

Councillor LOTTE COLLETT is part of a nationwide wave of resignations over Labour’s betrayals of its members and principles — and that wave is now forming into an organised network with two major conferences

morningstaronline.co.uk

 

[PTK]

Possibly the most appropriate thread for this as it relates to Labour and it's policies under Starmer:

The No Ceasefire, No Vote movement is growing rapidly

Councillor LOTTE COLLETT is part of a nationwide wave of resignations over Labour’s betrayals of its members and principles — and that wave is now forming into an organised network with two major conferences

morningstaronline.co.uk

Interesting!

 

[gosub]

Possibly the most appropriate thread for this as it relates to Labour and it's policies under Starmer:

The No Ceasefire, No Vote movement is growing rapidly

Councillor LOTTE COLLETT is part of a nationwide wave of resignations over Labour’s betrayals of its members and principles — and that wave is now forming into an organised network with two major conferences

morningstaronline.co.uk

Think I'd take a Bahnhof Strasse view on this. It's council elections...are the bins being collected ? Are the pot holes being filled ? Have they provided a road map to peace in the Middle East....not so much

 

[Karl Masks]

Starmer admits to 'persuading' the speaker.

Labour are absolutely guilty over this mess. The argument that the SNP enacted cynical politics just exposes Labour's own terrible position. If they think recognising 'collective punishment' for what it is is mere politicking then that's revealing

 

[SpookyFrank]

It passed by default, without a vote. The Deputy Speaker claims that she did not hear any cries of "No", and that therefore she did not need to call a vote (or "division" as they are known as). Rees-Mogg said that she was wrong, and that there were cries of "No." I am not sure why he would lie.

Seems like a bit of a shit system, waiting for people to shout 'no'.

 

[ska invita]

Handy cut out and keep list

All Keir Starmer’s Labour U-turns in one place

POLITICO lists 27 (and counting) key walkbacks in Starmer’s spell as opposition leader.

www.politico.eu

 

[Gramsci]

Think I'd take a Bahnhof Strasse view on this. It's council elections...are the bins being collected ? Are the pot holes being filled ? Have they provided a road map to peace in the Middle East....not so much

My local Labour Council had a good bunch of LD Cllrs. Who were commited to the local area and hardworking Cllrs.

Due to Nick Clegg they all lost their seats. ( Tuition fees and disastrous coalition with Tories.)

Point is at times national issues will affect local elections. Even if it is unfair on decent local Cllrs.

I'm not a LD voter but as I live in Lambeth I miss them as an opposition. They were very good Cllrs.

In London things like this have been happening

Labour loses another seat to Independent councillor after by-election in Newham

Newham has seen a huge shake-up in local democracy and Labour no longer hold every single seat in the borough

www.mylondon.news

Cllr Naqvi had been a member of the Labour Party but said she quit a few weeks ago because of its leader, Keir Starmer's stance on the Israel-Hamas war. She added: "Like many others I left the Labour Party and as a result was persuaded by Newham Independents to be their candidate in the Plaistow by-election."

 

[Duncan2]

Thank God for Lyndsey Graham telling it like it is on the BBC. Specifically on Any Questions when she provided a very concise riposte to the panellist representing Labour who wibbled on about being the "Government in Waiting" and having therefore "crafted" an amendment to the SNP motion that would be acceptable to the Conservatives

 

[Duncan2]

Lindsey German that is (of STWC) apols hadn't spotted my own error

 

[teqniq]

I'm not sure I agree with everything in this piece, but the issue that is Gaza most certainly hasn't gone away:

A faultline has opened in Keir Starmer’s pragmatic politics – and this time none of the usual fixes will work | Nesrine Malik

Gaza is an issue that Labour cannot simply finesse away. It is about real life, real death and the sympathies of millions, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gramsci]

I'm not sure I agree with everything in this piece, but the issue that is Gaza most certainly hasn't gone away:

A faultline has opened in Keir Starmer’s pragmatic politics – and this time none of the usual fixes will work | Nesrine Malik

Gaza is an issue that Labour cannot simply finesse away. It is about real life, real death and the sympathies of millions, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

Its good article

I do disagree that Starmer is just about "bloodless pragmatism".

On Israel once he was leader he went full on supporting Israel.

EXCLUSIVE: Why my Labour party will always stand up for Israel, writes Keir Starmer

The Labour leader writes exclusively for the Jewish Chronicle on antisemitism, antizionism and BDS

www.thejc.com

Starmer is saying Labour party traditionally supported Zionism

Which is historically true.

(Labour was historically also pro imperialist in a liberal way. The when these people are ready we will give them right to independence in the Commonwealth line. But that is going to be years. )

Harold Wilson was idealistic supporter of Zionism / Israel.

So in way this is one issue where Starmer is going back to Labours roots.

And not In a bloodless way.

Its come a cropper due to fact that State of Israel is demolishing Gaza and mass killing civilian Palestinians.

And Starmer really has been all at sea with the fact of how a Zionist State operates in practise.

So he is taking party back to its traditional longstanding support for Zionism ( Labour Zionism) Going back to supporting Balfour declaration.

See from article he supports two state solution/ opposes settlement building. But opposes BDS. So how exactly when he is in power will he be able to pressurise Israel to do these things. Ask them nicely?